Tuesday, March 16, 2010

It’s in the Koran

Believers in “moderate” Islam often describe violent jihad as “extremist” and a “distortion” of Islam, despite the fact that violence against the infidel (or the financial support of it) is sanctioned by the Koran and recognized by the four main schools of Islamic law as the duty of all good Muslims. Violent jihad is supported by a consensus of Islamic scholars, and is as “mainstream” an Islamic activity as bowing towards Mecca or making the hajj.

The same can be said of other retrograde and barbaric behaviors practiced by Muslims. Apologists for Islam claim that beheading, the lopping off of limbs, wife-beating, female genital mutilation, the stoning of adulterers, and slavery are “extreme” interpretations and do not represent “true Islam”. Nothing could be further from the truth: all of these activities have scriptural validation and enjoy the consensus of the scholars.

The prominent mufti in the following article from ANSAmed is no “extremist”: he is a respected member of Algeria’s traditional Islamic establishment. Let’s see what he has to say about wife-beating:

Algeria: Prison for Violent Husbands is Against Koran, Mufti

ALGIERS, MARCH 15 — The proposal to introduce prison terms for men who beat their wives goes against the Koran and the teachings of the prophet Mohamed, according to the head of Algeria’s Superior Islamic Council.

Qaher Sharif fiercely criticised the bill presented to the head of state Abdelaziz Bouteflika by the head of the Consultative Council on Human Rights Farouk Qustantiti. “This man’s aim is to violate a law of the Koran and of the Sunnah, and he meddles in subjects that are beyond his competence”, Sharif said in an interview with the Arab-language edition of the daily newspaper El Khabar.

“He’s done it before with the death penalty, and now with beatings,” he added, asking “what difference can it make to him what goes on between a man and his wife?”
- - - - - - - - -
The President of the Islamic Council said that he was stunned by Qustantini’s proposal, because “God has already pointed out precisely the way that a husband must behave towards his wife”. He quoted verses 34 and 35 of the Surah on women, in which men are advised to “admonish women, confine them to their bed and beat them” should they commit “nushooz”, a term signifying both infidelity and a refusal of sexual intercourse.

Sharif pointed out that the text is so precise that it indicates the method of punishment to be used against the wife, and that this should be neither “too insistent, nor provoke disfigurement”.

Westerners who bend themselves into halal pretzels trying to brand doctrines such as this “extreme” are eventually done in by plain, ordinary facts. These are not extremist positions in Islam. They are the norm, and have been for fourteen centuries.

To meet prevailing Western standards, a non-extreme version of Islam would necessitate the gutting of nine-tenths of Islam’s own holiest scriptures. How likely is that to happen?


Hat tip: Insubria.

14 comments:

Zenster said...

“He’s done it before with the death penalty, and now with beatings,” he [Qaher Sharif] added, asking “what difference can it make to him [Farouk Qustantiti] what goes on between a man and his wife?”

Let us suppose that the woman in question is Mr. Qustantiti's sister, daughter, neice or granddaughter. Might it then make some sort of "difference"? Were the unfortunate woman in question a relative of mine, it might well motivate me to appear with baseball bat in hand or, at least, summon the police.

Seeing as how Mr. Qaher Sharif essentially represents the police, I'd probably have to go with the Babe Ruth Option™ myself. Just saying ...

The President of the Islamic Council said that he was stunned by Qustantini’s proposal, because “God has already pointed out precisely the way that a husband must behave towards his wife”.

This is where, if recourse to a theological level is necessary, it becomes rather apparent that Islam is the toilet clogging load of horse hockey that it always has been. It is more than a little difficult to imagine a God who creates human life with full and complete foreknowledge or intention that said creations should also be subjected to physical abuse at the whim of another. Taken another important step further, it is equally, if not more, difficult to imagine a God who would reward with paradise someone who strove to slaughter the maximum number of innocent people by way of a terrorist attack.

A God that encourages the destruction of His own flock isn't much of a God and certainly not one I could bring myself to bow towards or worship. This represents a core flaw in Islam's whole construct and undermines all ostensible status it currently enjoys as a "religion".

Sharif pointed out that the text is so precise that it indicates the method of punishment to be used against the wife, and that this should be neither “too insistent, nor provoke disfigurement”.

Rumor has it that immersing someone in a barrel full of water and then smashing a baseball bat into the side of it is an effective form of torture that leaves nary a mark on the abused person's body. So, that "nor provoke disfigurement" horseradish doesn't cut a lot of ice with me. There are plenty of ways to inflict intense physical pain that do not "provoke disfigurement".

We can all be confident that more than a few Muslim men employ such non-obvious methods. Given that Muslim women go about covered head to toe, "disfigurement" becomes something that can involve quite a bit of latitude. Moreover, how many Muslim men simply dispense with such theoretical constraints as being too troublesome and simply opt for the usual beatdown that is all too familiar to women around the world?

All in all, Mr. Sharif is a sterling example of why Muslim men rank among some of the most self-serving individuals imaginable. It is also why shari'a law constitutes a gigantic violation of human rights and, for similar reasons, why Islam is nothing more than one vast ongoing crime against humanity.

To meet prevailing Western standards, a non-extreme version of Islam would necessitate the gutting of nine-tenths of Islam’s own holiest scriptures. How likely is that to happen?

It's safe to say that we'll all be skiing in Hell before that ever happens. Remember, any Muslims who do try to effect such changes in Islamic doctrine are routinely murdered by more pious Muslims who will always challenge with fatal force any such "blasphemy".

heroyalwhyness said...

The title of Baron's post triggers the melody of a song bearing the same title.

It's in the Koran via YouTube

Patrick Henry, author of this catchy little melody succeeded in embedding it permanently to memory.

Baron Bodissey said...

HRW --

Thank you! That was exactly what I was thinking of when I chose the title for this post.

Patrick Henry's old website is now dead, and I couldn't easily find a copy of the song.

heroyalwhyness said...

The internet archive still has Patrick Henry's archives available

ANTI-ISLAMIST said...

It’s in the Koran

The Baron wrote:
"The same can be said of other retrograde and barbaric behaviors practiced by Muslims....
...Apologists for Islam claim that...female genital mutilation [etc] ...are “extreme” interpretations and do not represent “true Islam.

Even I was of this opinion -- and when reading on:"... have scriptural validation and enjoy the consensus of the scholars", my hope was heightened. Wow, now he will tell us, the Baron, I thought, but my expectation was dashed to the ground.
Therefor i humbly must ask the Baron: where in the Koran or the Hadiths are these nicities imposed?
I should be very much obliged to you for giving me an exhaustiv answer. Thank you!

Baron Bodissey said...

Anti-Islamist --

It's in the hadith, although a weak one:

"Those who advocate for FGM from an Islamic perspective commonly quote the following hadith to argue that it is required as part of the Sunnah or Tradition of the Prophet:

"Um Atiyyat al-Ansariyyah said: A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet (pbuh) said to her: Do not cut too severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.

"This is known to be a 'weak' hadith in that it does not meet the strict criteria to be considered unquestionable (classified as mursal, i.e. missing a link in the chain of transmitters in that none was among the original Companions of the Prophet.) In addtion, it is found in only one of the six undisputed, authentic hadith collections, that is in the Sunan of Abu Dawud (Chapter 1888). According to Sayyid Sabiq, renowned scholar and author of Fiqh-us-Sunnah, all hadiths concerning female circumcision are non-authentic."

Muslim Women's League

laine said...

The Left is succeeding in holding the gates of the West open for colonizing Muslims while denying their existential danger to our civilization and smearing those who see the danger as "the crazy ones". (Drawing a Hitler mustache on Geert Wilders' picture is their latest Orwellian shorthand to get their mindless rageaholic shock troops going).

On the other hand, the Left has manufactured a completely false bogeyman of man made global warming from thin air and gotten all kinds of expensive and useless policies passed by gullible politicians during a global recession when every wasted penny counts, and we're talking trillions tossed in the ditch.

The Left is stupid in all its major initiatives (mainly through airy faith in their own imagined intellectual and moral superiority so they never bother doing any homework or face their dreadful results) but positively genius and relentless in propagandizing and acquiring the levers of power.

Of course, once they're in the control booth, they're as destructive as a dog driving a car he finally caught.

ANTI-ISLAMIST said...

Thank you, Baron!
That was, however, sparse - also for the Mahoundians as a divine instruction.

A good piece of general information, also congruent with the Baron´s, is here

ANTI-ISLAMIST said...

.
Directly from the horse's mouth.

Fatwa Title: Female circumcision
Fatwa No.: 89229
Fatwa Date: 12 Shawwal 1426
Question: I read the Shaykh Bodissey assertion on a www. site that the Hadeeth concerning female circumcision are weak or fabricated. This is contrary to what I know and what I have read about the issue. I think there is a Hadeeth where the Prophet, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, said that female circumcision is an honor for the woman. I just need some clarification about this issue, please!

Fatwa: All perfect praise be to Allaah, The Lord of the Worlds. I testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allaah, and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger, may Allaah exalt his mention as well as that of his family and all his companions.
The scholars, may Allaah have mercy on them, spoke about the chain of narrations regarding female circumcision. Some of them are of the view that such narrations are weak while some others classified some of the narrations as authentic; this is in general. As regards the narration mentioned in the question, it is a weak narration reported by Imaams Ahmad and Al-Bayhaqi and others. The wording of the narration is as follows: "Circumcision is a Sunnah for men and a noble trait for women." Al-Bayhaqi, may Allaah have mercy on him, commented on this narration saying: 'The chain of narrators of this narration is weak.'
Finally, the jurists, may Allaah have mercy on them, differed about the ruling of female circumcision and the most preponderant opinion with us in Islamweb is that it is desirable, please refer to Fataawa 81776 and 82042.
Allaah Knows best.
Fatwa answered by: The Fatwa Center at Islamweb - www.islamweb.net

Robert Marchenoir said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert Marchenoir said...

Muslim protests that such and such controversial practice of theirs are not condoned by Islamic scriptures is beside the point.

It reminds me of the endless debates about whether intelligence, violence or other human traits are inherited through biological mechanisms, or transmitted by culture.

Although those are interesting and valid scientific issues, they do not not matter a bit from a political standpoint, because the outcome is simply the same.

Whether a significant number of Muslims practice FGM because it's in their holy scriptures, or because the grandparents of their grandparents have told them it was the proper thing to do, or because of a mixture of both, is totally irrelevant as far as the wisdom of admitting a large number of Muslims in our midst is being debated.

When someone is aiming a gun at you, would you waste time considering whether the possible negative outcome to you would come from some chemical properties of gunpowder, or from the gunholder's finger ?

Me neither.

The Poster Formerly Known as Gordon said...

Unfortunately for your theory, Baron, our own holy book includes quite a few unfortunate passages along the same lines.

Robert Marchenoir said...

"The Bible also has some violence in it".

I cannot believe that Gordon is bringing up this stale argument, which has been thoroughly debunked around one million times.

This is a serious blog. Everyone may disagree, but please bring some real intellectual fodder to the table. Throwing around silly links will not do.

This particular Web page goes even further than the usual, moronic "violent verses in the Bible".

I mean, did you even read what you linked ? What's wrong with "A man is not to marry his father's wife; he must not dishonor his father's bed" ? Or with "A tyrannical ruler lacks judgement" ? The loony author of your Web page pretends this is "using male privilege".

What's wrong with "Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God" ? That, according to the luminary you quote, is "using emotional abuse".

What's wrong with "Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers" ? That, again, is "using intimidation", according to your "Domestic violence information depot".

Thanks for pointing out to us how terminally stupid some feminists can get.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Former Gordon, you may not have looked into the real world within the last century or five, so let me point out:

Christianity is a major civilizing force, rich in charity and constructive ethics. It has dealt with the violent passages in the Old Testament in a constructive and useful way, and teaches patience over aggression, forbearance over intimidation, and it WORKS!

Islam, on the other hand, keeps piling up more dead bodies.

And great to have that jolly and truthful song back! I was missing it.